 |
Kathmandu Saturday November 25, 2000 Mangshir 10, 2057.
|
Other side of protection
It was interesting to read the news about
increasing national park areas in Nepal. A new national
park has been established in the Kanchanjunga region. The area of Bardiya National Park is
going to be extended. Thousands of hectares of land areas are being converted into
national parks and protected areas. This Ministry of Forest is proud of its efforts to
conserve wildlife, endangered plant and animal species. On the other hand, donors are
pleased to support such development in the name of poor people. Political parties,
intellectuals, professional unions and NGOs are silent about this news.
Forestlands and its resources are valuable
property of the nation. Best use of these resources is an option to fight poverty. These
resources are worth if policy makers understand this potential and make their best efforts
to benefit poor people. It is unfortunate that our policy makers have not recognised this.
In countries like Nepal, increasing national
parks and protected areas has many disadvantages. Local communities have lost many
opportunities due to conversion of forest land areas to national park and protected areas.
At the local level, many people have been forced to leave their villages and their
existing employment (forest based livestock husbandry and other income activities). At the
national level, development budgets will have to be spent to maintain these parks and
areas. This decreases revenue and income opportunities. Because of international pressure.
Poverty is rampant. However, the country is
sacrificing valuable resource in the name of environment conservation. This dilemma leads
to some questions: are these resources our surplus to help others? Are these national
parks and protected areas our first national priority needs? Whose interest is it? Does it
help fulfil the demand of poor and landless people? Is it a welfare programs for poor
people? Who will bear its costs? Does it help reduce poverty? If not, may be, it is a
generosity of our policy makers towards environmental benefit for the world and future
generations at the cost of poor people.
The following facts may answer some
questions. Statistics indicate that on an average, 12 percent of the total land is
allocated to national parks and protected areas in the world. For tropical developing
countries the share is far below. Most of the parks and protected areas in western
countries are marginal lands unsuitable for agriculture and pasture. Rich people of these
developed countries have high demand for these services. In Nepal, more than 14 percent of
the total area is already under National Park and protected areas (excluding these new
areas). Most of these parks and reserves have occupied our most productive land. The value
of these services is only for the people those can afford Boeings and Pajeros.
Directly, it is the interest of policy makers
particularly in the Ministry of Forest and its villains. The ministry has strong holding
of rusty bureaucrats. These power holders control and restrict forests resource use.
Indirectly it is in the interest of cunning
donors. Economically well off people value high environmental resources. These are the
donors who have been making their benefits from conservative and incentive oriented
attitude of our policy makers. Masterminds of these donors know how these resources could
best be used to face the challenges of poor nations and the use of these forestlands into
national parks and protected areas are less beneficial to poor local people. However, they
are insisting and providing support to the bureaucracy to make national parks and
protected areas. This is a way of making global benefits at local costs, which is
international environment politics. Probably this politics may have some influence on
management of community forestry and has distorted its full benefits to poor and local
users. It was the responsibility of intellectuals, politicians, NGOs, and professional
unions to raise their voice against the misuse of power and resources. Foresters’
Association is the appropriate professional union for raising and advising on such issues.
Members of this association know about our resource use status better than people of other
professions. However, the association has not yet developed such a tradition; and the
association has high influence of that rusty bureaucracy, and the young generation cannot
challenge them. Vote hunting politicians have no time to think about the problems of poor
people. NGOs do not like to distract their milking cow, the donors.
Muktinath Upadhyaya
Kathmandu |
